genesis 1:2626 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

genesis 1:2626 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

If I read it correctly, the Christian and jewish God is in fact several ones. How do you interpret it?

God is an undivided Trinity...... The three in one and one in three......

That would be the father, the son and the holy spirit If I remember well. Jesus must be the son. What would be the diference between the father and the holy spirit? Is the entity of Yahveh is mostly the father figure or the is he allways the three at the same time? It's all a little blurry to me.

god created heaven and earth. But not hell. Do hell not exist or hell as been created on earth after the fall of man?

Hell may, or may not exist. It does not exist, for me. It may exist for those unable/unwilling to connect with the Divine, and/or those unable/unwilling to greet their deaths with open arms. Hell, as I see it, is a state. The highest achievement of a human in the area of creating realities, cut-off from the Creator. Not a very good substitute for the real thing.

If I read it correctly, the Christian and jewish God is in fact several ones. How do you interpret it?

Two things here. One is translation; it would be good to check what the original word is. Is it a royal We situation? Something else? The second is the triune nature that has been commented on already.

It is a little blurry to everyone. There is no convincing explanation, it is a mystery. It does not satisfy me but I am not a Christian, and I do accept that it does not need to be reducible to reason.

genesis 1:2626 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

If I read it correctly, the Christian and jewish God is in fact several ones. How do you interpret it?

God is an undivided Trinity...... The three in one and one in three......

That would be the father, the son and the holy spirit If I remember well. Jesus must be the son. What would be the diference between the father and the holy spirit? Is the entity of Yahveh is mostly the father figure or the is he allways the three at the same time? It's all a little blurry to me.

Don't burn too many calories trying to make sense of it. The Christian legend is just a vile distortion of pre-Judeo mysticism that is much more clear on the matter. In the beginning was the Father (Being) and Mother (Nothingness), and their union created the Child (the Universe).

I refrain from making any specific implications, but it is an interesting question; why did Christians removed the "Mother" from the original Trinity?

Perhaps, like Islam, they didn't want women getting any big ideas. Interestingly, Lao Tzu refers to the tao as the Great Mother, and also as it being older than God. Infinite pregnant potential, perhaps, into which all else manifests.

genesis 1:2626 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

If I read it correctly, the Christian and jewish God is in fact several ones. How do you interpret it?

God is an undivided Trinity...... The three in one and one in three......

That would be the father, the son and the holy spirit If I remember well. Jesus must be the son. What would be the diference between the father and the holy spirit? Is the entity of Yahveh is mostly the father figure or the is he allways the three at the same time? It's all a little blurry to me.

Don't burn too many calories trying to make sense of it. The Christian legend is just a vile distortion of pre-Judeo mysticism that is much more clear on the matter. In the beginning was the Father (Being) and Mother (Nothingness), and their union created the Child (the Universe).

I refrain from making any specific implications, but it is an interesting question; why did Christians removed the "Mother" from the original Trinity?

Actually the next obvious question would be who created the nothingness with which the Father united with? Have they both existed from all time? If that's is the case than what implications follow? Are the father, mother and child mutually exclusive, thus implying their own exclusively inherent divinity, therefore also implying a sort of polytheism? I get the feeling we are not really talking about the same Trinity to be quite frank. Catholics have a mother by the way, the Virgin Mary. Maybe, "mother" was removed from the "original" trinity because a new revelation deemed it false?

All religion just has to be an attempt to explain the unexplainable. Only a human could devise such an unnecessary thing. Only a human positively couldn't live without an explanation instead of a mystery.

genesis 1:2626 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

If I read it correctly, the Christian and jewish God is in fact several ones. How do you interpret it?

God is an undivided Trinity...... The three in one and one in three......

That would be the father, the son and the holy spirit If I remember well. Jesus must be the son. What would be the diference between the father and the holy spirit? Is the entity of Yahveh is mostly the father figure or the is he allways the three at the same time? It's all a little blurry to me.

Don't burn too many calories trying to make sense of it. The Christian legend is just a vile distortion of pre-Judeo mysticism that is much more clear on the matter. In the beginning was the Father (Being) and Mother (Nothingness), and their union created the Child (the Universe).

I refrain from making any specific implications, but it is an interesting question; why did Christians removed the "Mother" from the original Trinity?

Actually the next obvious question would be who created the nothingness with which the Father united with? Have they both existed from all time? If that's is the case than what implications follow? Are the father, mother and child mutually exclusive, thus implying their own exclusively inherent divinity, therefore also implying a sort of polytheism? I get the feeling we are not really talking about the same Trinity to be quite frank. Catholics have a mother by the way, the Virgin Mary. Maybe, "mother" was removed from the "original" trinity because a new revelation deemed it false?

It is not so complicated if we divorce ourselves from the egotistical assumption that the universe was "created" by some anthropomorphic will. Stephen Hawking does a better job of explaining the Cosmic Egg's (singularity) impregnation by the Father's Seed (quantum fluctuations, which are small but when the universe is compressed into an infinitely smooth point of zero-space, all it takes is a little nudge to set off quite a big reaction) than religions do.

You can spawn a never-ending reductionist trap of questions if you begin with the idea of "will" and creation" though. That's why the handfuk of people who are really able to comprehend and explain this stufft remove the human element as far as possible from their assumptions and conclusions. The universe just doesn't make sense if you assume that it *built* just for us.

genesis 1:2626 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

If I read it correctly, the Christian and jewish God is in fact several ones. How do you interpret it?

God is an undivided Trinity...... The three in one and one in three......

That would be the father, the son and the holy spirit If I remember well. Jesus must be the son. What would be the diference between the father and the holy spirit? Is the entity of Yahveh is mostly the father figure or the is he allways the three at the same time? It's all a little blurry to me.

Don't burn too many calories trying to make sense of it. The Christian legend is just a vile distortion of pre-Judeo mysticism that is much more clear on the matter. In the beginning was the Father (Being) and Mother (Nothingness), and their union created the Child (the Universe).

I refrain from making any specific implications, but it is an interesting question; why did Christians removed the "Mother" from the original Trinity?

Actually the next obvious question would be who created the nothingness with which the Father united with? Have they both existed from all time? If that's is the case than what implications follow? Are the father, mother and child mutually exclusive, thus implying their own exclusively inherent divinity, therefore also implying a sort of polytheism? I get the feeling we are not really talking about the same Trinity to be quite frank. Catholics have a mother by the way, the Virgin Mary. Maybe, "mother" was removed from the "original" trinity because a new revelation deemed it false?

It is not so complicated if we divorce ourselves from the egotistical assumption that the universe was "created" by some anthropomorphic will. Stephen Hawking does a better job of explaining the Cosmic Egg's (singularity) impregnation by the Father's Seed (quantum fluctuations, which are small but when the universe is compressed into an infinitely smooth point of zero-space, all it takes is a little nudge to set off quite a big reaction) than religions do.

You can spawn a never-ending reductionist trap of questions if you begin with the idea of "will" and creation" though. That's why the handfuk of people who are really able to comprehend and explain this stufft remove the human element as far as possible from their assumptions and conclusions. The universe just doesn't make sense if you assume that it *built* just for us.

That was my point in the first place. You said that the Catholic Trinity removed Mother from the original Trinity, I was responding that your idea of the Trinity is different from the Catholic conception of the Trinity and your responses have verified that. As a side note, the idea of an Anthropomorphic will creating something is an oversimplification of Catholic Cosmology. Yes, life and the creation of the Universe is complicated, mysterious and not likely to be fully explained by human reason. Its no less egotistical to assume the Stephen Hawking via the scientific method and human reason has successfully explained the origin of life, universe etc. If you really believe that the science removes the human element from its explanations than I think you need to go back and read about the history and development of science, especially regarding the human made philosophical assumptions that underlie it all. Btw, Im not attacking science here but science is the ultimate expression of how human reason/rationality understands reality, i.e., the human mind projects, via science, its own laws onto reality in order to understand and make sense of reality (as it must, according to its nature). Knowledge gained through science is as much about revealing "laws" in nature as it is about understanding how human reason operates.

Actually, there is no reductionist trap if we begin with the idea that the Universe was created, I know very well where that reduction ends and it probably includes, in way way or another, the very idea of creation you are espousing. However, it goes further because it is not trapped in Rationalism, or the idea that because the human mind cannot penetrate any further that mother, father, child that nothing exists beyond it. In the end, it is a matter of doing justice to the idea of a "Creator" so that He is not reduced to some sort of superman, or Cosmic Santa. I too understand God as Being, as Ultimate Reality, that which has existed from all time, the source of all Ideas (Platonically speaking) and the source of the underlying structure and order of the Universe (Word). If there is a "father", "mother", "child", it has the source of its being in God, and so we begin at the beginning again....

genesis 1:2626 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

If I read it correctly, the Christian and jewish God is in fact several ones. How do you interpret it?

God is an undivided Trinity...... The three in one and one in three......

That would be the father, the son and the holy spirit If I remember well. Jesus must be the son. What would be the diference between the father and the holy spirit? Is the entity of Yahveh is mostly the father figure or the is he allways the three at the same time? It's all a little blurry to me.

Don't burn too many calories trying to make sense of it. The Christian legend is just a vile distortion of pre-Judeo mysticism that is much more clear on the matter. In the beginning was the Father (Being) and Mother (Nothingness), and their union created the Child (the Universe).

I refrain from making any specific implications, but it is an interesting question; why did Christians removed the "Mother" from the original Trinity?

Actually the next obvious question would be who created the nothingness with which the Father united with? Have they both existed from all time? If that's is the case than what implications follow? Are the father, mother and child mutually exclusive, thus implying their own exclusively inherent divinity, therefore also implying a sort of polytheism? I get the feeling we are not really talking about the same Trinity to be quite frank. Catholics have a mother by the way, the Virgin Mary. Maybe, "mother" was removed from the "original" trinity because a new revelation deemed it false?

It is not so complicated if we divorce ourselves from the egotistical assumption that the universe was "created" by some anthropomorphic will. Stephen Hawking does a better job of explaining the Cosmic Egg's (singularity) impregnation by the Father's Seed (quantum fluctuations, which are small but when the universe is compressed into an infinitely smooth point of zero-space, all it takes is a little nudge to set off quite a big reaction) than religions do.

You can spawn a never-ending reductionist trap of questions if you begin with the idea of "will" and creation" though. That's why the handfuk of people who are really able to comprehend and explain this stufft remove the human element as far as possible from their assumptions and conclusions. The universe just doesn't make sense if you assume that it *built* just for us.

That was my point in the first place. You said that the Catholic Trinity removed Mother from the original Trinity, I was responding that your idea of the Trinity is different from the Catholic conception of the Trinity and your responses have verified that. As a side note, the idea of an Anthropomorphic will creating something is an oversimplification of Catholic Cosmology. Yes, life and the creation of the Universe is complicated, mysterious and not likely to be fully explained by human reason. Its no less egotistical to assume the Stephen Hawking via the scientific method and human reason has successfully explained the origin of life, universe etc. If you really believe that the science removes the human element from its explanations than I think you need to go back and read about the history and development of science, especially regarding the human made philosophical assumptions that underlie it all. Btw, Im not attacking science here but science is the ultimate expression of how human reason/rationality understands reality, i.e., the human mind projects, via science, its own laws onto reality in order to understand and make sense of reality (as it must, according to its nature). Knowledge gained through science is as much about revealing "laws" in nature as it is about understanding how human reason operates.

Actually, there is no reductionist trap if we begin with the idea that the Universe was created, I know very well where that reduction ends and it probably includes, in way way or another, the very idea of creation you are espousing. However, it goes further because it is not trapped in Rationalism, or the idea that because the human mind cannot penetrate any further that mother, father, child that nothing exists beyond it. In the end, it is a matter of doing justice to the idea of a "Creator" so that He is not reduced to some sort of superman, or Cosmic Santa. I too understand God as Being, as Ultimate Reality, that which has existed from all time, the source of all Ideas (Platonically speaking) and the source of the underlying structure and order of the Universe (Word). If there is a "father", "mother", "child", it has the source of its being in God, and so we begin at the beginning again....

Please keep in mind that none of my words were directed specifically toward Catholic cosmology. (Then, I suppose, your accusation of over-simplification on my part is even truer!)

Science in its pure form is actually one of the most effective ways of dealing with reality, not because it removes the human element (as anyone familiar with the scientific method will insist is impossible) but it allows us to take the first step away from the idea that things *ought* to be a certain way just because they *are* the way we see them. So now we know about the distance between stars and whether or not different planets are inhabitable and we can accept reality that is not apparent immediately. Such an idea is still abhorrent to most people, though, but time moves on with or without them.

But two of my points still hold:

1. Positing universal creation anthropomorphizes a process that is too inhuman and elegant to be described in ontological terms.

2. The Catholic Trinity is unoriginal and redundant because pre-Catholic mystics had already streamlined the explanation in a far more comprehensive way than did Catholic lore, which is in truth a potpourri of pagan lore that made a highly effective lowest-common-denominator-type religion for the Roman Empire to absorb all of the cultures it conquered during its vast expansion.

It is not so complicated if we divorce ourselves from the egotistical assumption that the universe was "created" by some anthropomorphic will. Stephen Hawking does a better job of explaining the Cosmic Egg's (singularity) impregnation by the Father's Seed (quantum fluctuations, which are small but when the universe is compressed into an infinitely smooth point of zero-space, all it takes is a little nudge to set off quite a big reaction) than religions do.

I hate this stuff. This is a non-answer, just another layer of abstraction. Something comes from nothing because... surprise! Nothing isnt really nothing! All this does is describe a process, it does not reveal cause. Cause is ignored in favour of this description, then through some mental gymnastics this is presented as being a substantial answer. Nevertheless even old Dr. Motor Neurone Disease made comments that did not support positivism, swiftly retracted of course.

Religions may explain it poetically or mystically, but they at least explain it.